pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Shireen/PvXWiki:User Conduct
The problem is retaining the ability to say "No, you're bad, stop it," while keeping things nice. --71.229 19:08, 28 March 2008 (EDT) What everyone mistconstrudes as 'elitism' is nothing more than petty clicks. For the most part anyone not known gets flamed as a knee jerk reaction. No one takes time to debate or explain choices of this skill over that. They just want to nuke and forget it. I made some progress with this a while back, but no one else picked up the reigns and now we have a new 'consistant' lurker base that is all about promoting the status quo and posting nothing but 'epic fail'. Only those whom get pissed off enough to want to but heads with these regulars stick around. We need some kind of cutomer service inititive. Shireen former sysop 19:14, 28 March 2008 (EDT) The problem with PvX is that no one decent (at GW) actually contributes to the site; not our lousy "Customer Service". Half the people are unranked obs whores, who use internet slang as if it was their first language. If people were not so idiotic, clueless, and terrible at the game, then perhaps we would get better contributors. O, and the bar of being "elite", is set very low on PvX. --[[User:Readem|'Readem']] 19:34, 28 March 2008 (EDT) :So the real problem is non-elite elitists then? [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 19:38, 28 March 2008 (EDT) ::: If the issue is that no one decent at GW is comming to this site, then why are we still trying to cater our website to these uber individuals that arnt here? The users that ARE here, or rather, would be the easiest to get here, are those individuals wanting to learn the game. Thats why they come here, to learn how to make builds. If you allready know how to make awesome builds, why in the world would you need to come to a site like this? That and our out in town reputation stinks. Any time I've asked an opinion or mentioned that I am using a build I got off of PvX, 9 out of 10 times I have gotten some very negative responses that would make my grandmother slap someone. Our Reputation stinks because we are not taking care of our user base. With our reputation in the gutter we will not attract anything other than the afformentioned unranked obs *****, as they are the only ones who will want to stick around. We change the way we handle things, and our user base will increase, our reputation will become *gasp* respectable and eventually we will have some very strong individuals helping to contribute builds. We should work with what we have and work to attract what we want. As opposed to only wishing for what we dont have. Shireen former sysop 00:12, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::Do you think we could possible start having like a "school" to teach n00bs what NOT to do in RA/TA/AB/Etc? Sounds semi-stupid, but idk... ~~ 12:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::::I think more focus on why something doesn't work, or why something shouldn't be done instead of "OMG U FAIL! THIS BUILD IS RUBBISH!" would probably help to a degree. If you can crack down on those who troll builds (regardless of how bad it is) I'm sure you'll get better publicity. I mean if someone comes here for the first time and submits a poor build, but then doesn't really know why, should he be shunned or nurtured to learn better? I guarantee you that most people who come here, and submit a build that gets trolled on for whatever reason probably never bother coming back, and to be honest who can blame them with some of the behaviour on this site? If it takes teaching people through the use of guides, mentors (maybe a bit farfetched), etc, to make them better understand stuff and make this a better place then maybe it should be considered. Selket Shadowdancer 12:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::::Good point Selket. The trolling people who are not good doesn't encourage learning and getting better. ~~ 12:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::::::See my latest rant on my user page. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 15:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::::::Gawd DE... From now on, even if the build is obviously excellent/terribad, I will remove votes that don't have reason.s ~~ 15:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::::::::People seem to talk about wanting good people on this site, but there is very little incentive for a good person to come here. They don't need the information stored here, they would only be here to help by submitting builds and rendering opinion. Any build they use will most likely already be submitted because someone obsed it. Very few people are selfless enough to stay here and only give out good, helpful advice. As such, our base consists of a lot of new and inexperiences players, putting out new ideas and seeking constructive advice, as well as a few people who just want to show their OMGZ SO AWESOME BUILD! We see the same builds come up over and over again, I know I'm talking like I'm a long time member when my list of contributions is fairly short, but I've used PvX for quite a while without contributing. I tend to flick through random builds seeing if there is anything interesting, so yes, I've seen a lot of unfavoured dagger rangers. Most deserved to be trashed, some got less credit than they were due. Viable ideas are often hidden in the trash. What most of them got was "Lol, you fail, Rangers with daggers r fail.", followed by ridicule, 0-0-0 votes and little to no explaination. Authors will often put forward one or two other crappy builds, then disappear. Getting them to disappear is not progress. Teaching them what makes a build good and what makes a build bad might actually get them to submit some good builds that would surprise you, then they also could help informing other new people what makes a good build and what makes a bad build so you would have to do less of this yourself. More people also means more ideas. One thing I have noticed though is that voting has become ridiculous. Most new builds are 5-5-5ed or 0-0-0ed. We have the other and good categories for a reason, you shouldn't 0-0-0 a build just because it is worse than Shock Axe, that is stupid. If it works it should get a vote of at least 2.5. By working I mean sets out to meet it's objectives, I am aware than anything works in RA for example. I think voting needs to be reworked at the moment because authors and new people are 5-5-5ing terrible builds while everyone else is 0-0-0ing them, probably to offset the 5-5-5ing. What we could really use is some education and a change in attitude so these people aren't 5-5-5ing bad builds in the first place, usually if you get someone who ran a warrior without an IAS and an IMS to run one with they will see why without fails. We DO need a noob school, I think we also need a massive vote purge, even on old vetted builds, votes need to have reasons and they need to make sense and the reasons need to be in line with the ratings. - image:miserysig1.jpgisery -TALK 15:29, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::::::::The problem with the vetting is just that that when you're vetting bad or decent builds it seems like the universality and innovation exists, but when rating good builds it's all about effectiveness. For example the many ranger builds could never be called innovative, and yet they score high in that, the same goes for shock axe and pretty much all other meta gimmicks. The problem with keeping to many noobs on this site is that it tends to become more like in Fire Tock's case: they just keep on failing forever and ever instead of for once learning what's good and what's not. The problem is also that there tends to be a quite widespread elitism among most people who vote and thus it's pretty much only meta builds that make it to the good/great list. [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 19px 15:44, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::::::::::(Edit Conflict, sorry about slipping in above, but it wouldn't make sense under your long post)Please note that innovative != innovative on this site for some reason. It means something to do with the meta phrased in such a way that meta builds will always get 5. A lot of people think this should be reworded. Builds that aren't meta probably shouldn't make it into great originally, but they SHOULD make it into good or other, then over time people will realise they are good, the votes will change and the exposure on the site and increasing usage will bring them into the meta and they will become voted great. That is what the other and good sections SHOULD be for and why they need to exist. I can't comment on the failing forever and ever part, a universal truth no matter the skill level seems to be that pugs they get into are worse than they are. I don't know how this is possible for some of the really bad players I know, but trust me, it is. As a general rule, GW players are actually failures at the game, that's because it takes a damn long time to realise what works if you've never experienced it. Talk to most anyone and they had a period where they frontlined as a monk, thought pets were awesome, frenzy bad etc, etc. I don't want to NPA here or sound like an elitist prick, but if you look through some peoples contributions, they do fail hard and will for ever. Comments like "This looks really good, but you should make this assassin a Ranger primary for better energy management." You attempt to explain it to them and they are like, no, you are wrong. These people aren't worth your time or breath and should be ignored, but for the love of god, find the ones that do learn and understand new concepts. - image:miserysig1.jpgisery -TALK 16:15, 29 March 2008 (EDT) *Message from the rambling author **<3 *Mission Statement **Arguably depending on who is currently online QQ or modding guru we are already the premeir site. *Maintain a loyal reoccurring user base **No one would read the box any more than they read the rules as it is. Nor does more than 1% of the userbase read the EULA. no one cares. **moreover, the current voting rules are at best arbitrary and at worst useless. when someone 5-5-5's and writes srs bsns in the text box, it comes down to the user who voted not the reason. the system itself is largely in minimal need of an overhaul as well. quibbles over innovation can be condensed into some QQIng on grinch's talk page and a couple of removed votes, and i challeneg you to show me a build where the rating system itself has adversely effected it. *Attract new users **This is largely a moot point, a larger userbase would do nothing for the quality of the site. **"Create easy to find well maintained sections of the site aimed at new users and contributors. Game training needs to occour, if everyone is upset that we do not have highly skilled people on this site, then lets train what we got!" :::This would not work on many levels. the reality is that the idea of a site where 100% of the user base should have knowledge of 1% of the build base(i.e. the meta) is impossible. training what we have is ridiculous. i ta with alex and ska and talk builds with tab. i'm still fucking terrible at the game. and i'm actually trying. go to the archived cripshot talk page or let me dig up some screenshots, people dont want to learn. its also not our job. *Ensure the website is maintained and stays attractive **"Other than some of our talk pages, our administration does an excellent job at this." ***Talk pages have no effect on the site, it is hilariously 1984 to edit talk pages to make the site nicer. to sum up: there is largely no point to this. this site already documents the meta, the only thing necesary to maintain that is arguably the continued member ship of at most 10 users who actually know the game. we are also not a forum. it is not the admins job or right(?) to moderate our discussions and keep us on topic. continuing in that vein, its also not our job to train players. its an epic contradiction between your mission statement and your other goals. pvx cant cover every base, and to be club carebear is not the correct path to go down. also, on a broader topic, shireen, why the hell do you sugar coat everything? when a man is given the death penalty hes not treated politely. auron doesnt ask me to leave when i flame an ip, he fucking bans my ass. if everyone thought like you did this would be a great policy to approve and live by but they dont and making this policy would lead to degradation not improvement judging from our current userbase. attracting new users with high skill would not make a difference, read the QQ public forum if you disagree. as a final point:regarding elitism, skakid said it best. (something along the lines of this) "to all you elitists, your taking it a bit too far. never forget, your calling yourself elite while simultaneously posting on this site."--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 16:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :: What I am trying to propose is a paradime shift. When we first started re-vamping the vetting system I got a lot of backlash for proposing that we go to a numerical vetting system. Eventually a simplified version of what I proposed was adopted, the community adjusted, and everyone agrees that we have a stronger system now than what we had earlier. The viewpoint of the user base shifted and we became better. Thats what Im trying to propose here is that we again, shift the vewpoint, the paradime in which we operate. Most people come here to learn the game, so lets start making a more concious effort at teaching those people the game and making this site much more enjoyable to be around. We have to start with our base before we can build to the top. And yes, we get more hits and such compared to those other sites, but those other sites have stronger reputations. If we change some of the ways we think and operate this site can really become something special. :: One issue that I know of is that our policies are buried, or not very visable. And we dont have anything that is "You must read and abide by these rules before contributing" anywhere. The major problem with EULA's is that they are long winded and legalise. If we make a simple list of rules and post them, and on an "eddit page" we put a short list of reminders that they see every time they post, it may help to cut down on the nastyness that comes about. Aside from formal rules that are constantantly circulated and reminded to people, is that if more people make a concious effort to be polight and set the example. Shireen former sysop 16:58, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::The only good way (I can think of off the top of my head) to solve some of these problems would be to find a solid way to provide an incentive to users to actually take the time to explain why a particular build fails. What that incentive could be, I'm not sure, but the people (as a general rule) simply aren't motivated of their own accord. :::Regarding Innovation, there is an agreed upon - I use the phrase lightly, but no one has disagreed yet - to a system that I devised and proposed on the Real Vetting talk page which Hhhippo has said should be easy to implement (although that would require that Cardinal/Hhhippo were actually around at some point... but...). :::Regarding training the current user base, I disagree with Dark's contention that it's not possible. Yes, it's not possible if they post a single build and get flamed into oblivion, but, as per my rant, it is possible, over the course of time (if a user is exposed to enough good/bad builds and the reasons why those builds are good and bad) to teach users fundamental concepts like: what ~6 skills can be found on almost every solid Warrior bar, what constitutes good energy management, etc. Of course, in order for that to happen, we also need those users to stick around for a while. No, we can't make users good at the game, but yes, we can teach them what constitutes a reasonable build. I also disagree with the contention that it's not our job to do so (read the rant on my user page). :::Regarding your summation Dark, it's all a moot point if no one actually uses the site, and part of why people don't use the site is our laughable reputation. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 19:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::With the whole laughable reputation bit, I'd be for cooking up an essay on the rather negative connotation associated with "a wiki build". It's extremely agonizing when I see solid builds denounced because they're on PvX. -Shen 19:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT) :::::Its only uneducated idiots, forum trolls, and generally people that dont think for themselves think wiki is bad.--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (EDT) ::::Money. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 17:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT) :::::I have the feeling that DE and Shireen missed my point. When i say getting more users is pointless, i mean it. Educated people understand this wiki is a valuable resource. And educated people maintain it. This constitutes Tab, Rawr, Skakid, Auron, and 5-10 other major users that contribute, contest, debate and bring up examples that help to maintain a strong database. In reality, it is the equally counted votes and opinions of ridiculously bad people(including myself) that lead to a general degradation of the wiki. Though my heavy handed words regarding training the userbase were deservedly refuted, what i failed to mention is that that requires a userbase that is willing to learn, and more importantly, realizes that it needs to. DE, i understand competent energy management and how a warrior's bar should look. I am in no way competent to discuss and post a meta build, though. Consider the many people who have similiar experience to me and post here and dont understand the simple fact that they as a whole have more than they have yet learned to learn in order to cross the metaphorical bridge of basic competence. See the N/W corrupt necro(link on my userpage). The minor shitstorm of that build is an excellent example of my point, not to mention the fact that i myself, the poster of the build, was barely equipped to refute let alone understand the fallibility of the removed votes. I had posted that builds on a blocked Rawr's orders via MSN, and only moved to take it out of trash once he communicated his depression that pvx immediately unfavored it with such blatant incorrectness. In addition, to hopefully end this venture, i would like to make the point that: :::::*A.) GW is largely dead, making this a largely ignorable issue, and any policy change could potentially be on the heels of GW2, bringing me to point :::::*B.)A policy like this would be an assured death sentence for a GW2 build database. Teaching users how to play when the meta itself doesnt exist is not the thing to have on the resume for the hopefully long duration of this site in regards to GW2. This site, as i once discussed with rawr and grinch, has the potential to be a mover and shaker in that game, and turning into care bear club at or before its imminent completion and release is simply stupid.--Dark0805(Rant/ ) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT) :::::: Ok. Whether or not an expanded user base is necessary to actually maintain the site, it's all an exercise in futility if our reputation is so poor that no one actually wants to use it; I'm not (necessarily) proposing that the actual quality of the site will improve, but whether or not we're actively teaching users, the goal of the site is still to teach (which builds are good, which are not, and why) given that the people who actually would benefit from this site are the people who don't already know what builds they should use. When I think of expanding the user base I don't mean that we need more active contributors, I mean that we want more people visiting the site who believe that there's something to be learned from it, otherwise, what's the point? And granted, I don't play GW, nor do I pay attention to what people have to say about PvX on other sites, but I have a feeling that a big part of the problem is the general prevalence of asinine behavior on this site. Let's say that I'm a relatively new GW player. I start a PvE Mesmer and think I've discovered the sweetest build ever (an FC Blood Magic Me/N for instance -- which was incidentally the first 8 skill build I ever ran in PvE). I log onto PvX (having heard about it through a friend or whatever) and post my build. Ignoring for the moment that I've neglected to look through the favored builds, what should happen? Given that PvX's goal is to teach people about builds and given that PvX wants a large base of people using the site, I should be directed to a better build and have the flaws in my own build pointed out to me. That serves some purpose. Having a first-class PvE Mesmer build has absolutely no value if no one's using it. :::::: And just a quick note about a GW2 build repository: we don't know if we're going to have a PvX2, nor has any thought gone into how that site is going to be structured, so bringing it up really serves no purpose. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 20:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)